In an atheistic world, it would be OK to kill your parents to get the money though. Money would get you places in life. You parents being alive wouldn't get you anywhere.
What you're referring to is amoral
, not atheistic
. I realize this is a linguistic distinction and thus might be lost on you, but you really shouldn't conflate the two. Someone can be totally non-religious and yet still ave a strong moral code, whereas someone else can be the most devout theist and be totally amoral. By the way, that pretty much negates your point about objective morality. If it existed, then it would apply to everyone, and there would be no such thing as being amoral.
But since Christians don't care about money and material things, we wouldn't even dream of the idea.
Yet literally millions of Christians do care about money and material things. In fact, the vast majority do. The difference is, they're not amoral, so they're not willing to do anything in order to get money and material things. That aside, not caring about money and material things is not what makes one a Christian. Worshiping Jesus is what makes one a Christian, just as not worshiping (or believing in) any god is what makes one an atheist.
But someone who thought money was all you needed to be successful? Now that would be scary.
Indeed, psychopaths (those who essentially don't have morality) can be pretty scary. However, that has nothing to do with atheists, except atheists who are also psychopaths - far rarer than either alone.
God wrote the law on our hearts. No surprise there. Lots of people are Christians without even realizing it. Just like how some people are non-Christians without even realizing it (the murderous ones).
This makes no sense at all when you actually think about it. If your god wrote the law on human hearts, that means that he failed with a noticeable percentage of the population. Not only that, but a notable percentage of the ones he succeeded with have essentially disavowed him - another failure. That's assuming your initial assumption is correct; personally, I think it's more likely that you're engaging in post hoc reasoning, trying to rationalize away inconsistencies in your belief (and creating more as a side-effect of that process).
Of course not. But the fact remains you guys are borrowing from Christianity by not doing it.
Nope. You're conflating your religious belief and morality again. The fact of the matter is that morality is independent of religious belief, or lack thereof. That's why you have atheists who hold to morals and Christians who are amoral, not this post hoc "God wrote the law on our hearts" business.
Some people certainly care all about money and would kill their parents for it. This is based on the "money is everything" mentality.
But such people are properly referred to as amoral, not atheistic.
There is no objective reason for an atheist to get mad if someone does it. The best they can say is, "Well, you have a different view than I do."
Now you're confusing atheism with moral relativity. This is no more valid than confusing it with amorality, not to mention that you're contradicting yourself.
Only Christianity teaches us to love one another. Atheism teaches us nothing. Every man for himself.
Given that you don't have very much information on other religions, and given how consistently badly off you are on atheism, why should anyone believe you that "only Christianity teaches us to love one another"? You see, you're continuing to make the mistake of conflating your religious beliefs with morality, which doesn't really work. What religion does - any religion - is give people a set of moral rules to follow, but this is not the same as saying that morality itself comes from religion. If morality did not already exist in people then trying to impose it with religious beliefs wouldn't work. That, I'm sure, is why you say that your god wrote his law on our hearts, but if that were the case, why not simply write the religion on our hearts as well? If every human being - or most of us, anyway - instinctively had Christian beliefs that had to be overcome before they could turn to some other religion
, then it would make the case for your god quite a bit more convincing.
Instead, you see a pattern where children almost always initially take on the religion of their family and society (to a lesser degree). You seldom - almost never, as in it's vanishingly rare - see children bucking their parents' beliefs until they've gotten old enough to think about it, and most often not for a long while even then. In short, your god did not write the religion he favored on human hearts, so why should we believe that he wrote the morality he favored on human hearts either?